Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Proudfoot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Any POV issues should be handled as an editorial matter, outside of AfD. RL0919 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Philip Proudfoot

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP of a minor party leader, who is not reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:NPOL #9. Wikipedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability to the leader of every political party, especially those who are leaders of parties lacking political representation or which have never contested elections. The primary sources about him largely concern the Northern Independence Party rather than Proudfoot directly, his personal twitter account, and the two sources which directly interview him are not enough to establish notability. Good material for the NIP page, but not enough for a stand-alone page on Mr Proudfoot himself. BitterGiant (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 25.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable person leading an unnotable party (that should itself be deleted). Article is barely more than a puff piece. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. While the party has received independent coverage in reliable sources, he hasn't and has not even stood as a candidate for the party. Emeraude (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep there are two profiles of Proudfoot - one in The Northern Echo, one in the National World (possibly less reliable) - which probably puts this over the line for NPOL or GNG. There is a profile of Proudfoot in The London Economic although for some reason that website has been blacklisted by WP - never heard of this site so feel free to disregard. A story about Proudfoot was published in The Jewish Chronicle. Other sources which are mainly about NIP, have big sections speaking about Proudfoot and his life: New Statesman #1, New Statesman #2, The Independent, The National. Finally there are a couple of passing references in regard to his academic work:  . If deleted, I am almost certain it will be recreated in a year or so. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree entirely with the above observations and believe deletion is not appropriate. The above suggestion that NIP should itself be deleted, despite the fact consensus prevented this, suggests questionable motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:52CF:D82E:8B7:78B8:8A67:5C0D (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)  — 2A04:4A43:52CF:D82E:8B7:78B8:8A67:5C0D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per Vladimir. And no, NIP is not getting deleted. Unreal7 (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree with the delete arguments entirely and concor with Vladimir's perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasey2020 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of whether or not this article should be deleted, it's clear people have issues with the article's neutrality. As previously said here, it's like a puff piece, and I'm inclined to agree. I'm also particularly suspicious of the amount of IP users and SPAs that seem to be policing NIP articles (and the irony of being an IP user myself is not lost on me, but I've observed several attempts by NIP to encourage edit warring via Twitter. That is not to say every IP and SPA has a bad intent, and we should assume good faith, but it cannot be ignored). 148.252.129.27 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.